Minutes 03-17-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

for economic development. He said that all of the water and sewer project on the table would require about $8.4 million in debt and the debt service would be $672,000 at today's rate. Regarding Elementary 11, this would be about $2 million in debt. The '/4-cent sales tax would pay about 60% of the debt service, as an example. Chair Pelissier made reference to page 65 and the first line that says "Jail Expansion." She asked about the status of this potential expansion. Frank Clifton said that this is an issue that needs more analysis, depending on what the State does. At this time, there are about 70 slots allocated to Federal prisoners. He hopes to do some future planning sometime soon. The County gets money from the Federal government for holding Federal prisoners on a daily basis. Michael Talbert made reference to page 4 and the related operating costs for the general fund. This is applicable if everything in the plan is done as it is currently laid out. The bulk of the amount is debt service. Michael Talbert made reference to page 5 and proprietary projects. The $10 million is for water and sewer utilities. Funding sources is primarily debt financing of about $8.4 million. There is about $1.3 million in EPA grants. Commissioner McKee asked clarifying questions about the phases of the Efland sewer fund, which were answered by Craig Benedict. Chair Pelissier asked clarifying questions about the Buckhorn/Efland Phase 2, which were answered by Frank Clifton and Craig Benedict. Michael Talbert referred to page 6 and the Solid Waste Capital Projects and said that these were listed by their different divisions of sanitation, recycling, and landfill. The projects include information shared regarding a possible 4R fee and the hours at the convenience centers, including upgrades. All of the projects that are debt-financed will be paid from this fund. Commissioner McKee said that this is another project that he wonders about and the impact it would have if the convenience centers were not upgraded. He made reference to page 47. He asked if there has been any discussion about how critical it is to move forward with this now. Frank Clifton said that the key to this is the more that is recycled, the less that goes into the landfill. The centers are heavily used and there are a lot of man hours spent there now. It is ultimately a Board decision. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the analysis shows that the improvements are needed so that when the landfill closes, the waste can be transported from the convenience centers to the transfer station. If the waste is not compacted, it will cost a lot more to transport the waste. The improvements will improve the look and feel, but it will primarily allow the County to save the cost of many hauling trips in the long run. Commissioner Foushee said that in the interim what is not provided for her is information on what the County plans to do in terms of how to treat solid waste. This seems to her as business as usual in terms of dealing with waste. Frank Clifton said that the alternative would be to franchise door to door pickup. This is more costly. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out the cost efficiencies of the 4R fee as opposed to paying someone to pick up trash door to door. Chair Pelissier said that if more trash is diverted from the landfill, this gives the County more time to explore other options than a transfer station. She really wants to look at other options.